Both fully God and fully man

[MJFlores]

You believe.......... that he is God?
You believe.......... he has two natures? What does scripture tell us?...........

Read those verses again!!

"........thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Oh.... dont stop there my friend!!!.... "But made himself of no reputation,........" Paul's explaining what the Jews thought that Jesus was doing. But he's saying, no, he didnt!!

Let's keep on reading..........

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


That's co-equal?!!!!! Are you serious? God gives Jesus everything!! Without God, Jesus can do NOTHING.

Everything is to the glory of God. Everything.

You really have the understand the mindset of a fanatic.
I used to be a fanatic and mind you, I was not thinking back then.

Didn't know that praying repeatedly is what pagans do
Didn't know that there were 150 Hail Mary's and just 10 Lord's prayer
Didn't know that the things I did were not Christian

And there are a lot of people doing the things I did
Because we were just fanatics
Believing without understanding
Believing what is passed on without checking if it is true
Following the doctrines of men, following false teachers

They don't really bother if what their following is true or a lie
The false teachings they have learned is as dangerous like eating from a tiolet

And the Bible is once again correct about these people

Matthew 13:15 New King James Version (NKJV)
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

 

[moorea944]

We should get all our answers from the Bible
Each of one of us have his own preferences but we should set aside those biases to know the real truth
When Paul preached in Rome [and this was a long time since Jesus was taken up to heaven]
Did Paul preached Jesus as a God? Did Paul preached Jesus as the heaven on earth?
Let us check the truth written in the Bible

Romans 5:17-19 New International Version (NIV)
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

View attachment 33358

Apostle Paul preached to the Romans that Jesus is the one man whose obedience, many will be made righteous. This is contrary to other people beliefs now days that Jesus is fully God. It is also opposite to others belief that Jesus is a place like heaven. [unless it was intended as a metaphor]

I totally agree. I think that the orginal teachings of Jesus and the apostles have gone astray throughout the years. They've been changed by certain faiths and churches and so many different versions of the bible.

How many times in scripture does it tell us that Jesus or the "coming Messiah" was going to be like us? Look at Heb 2.

OT, look at 2 Sam 7 on what was told to David. Deut 18 to what Moses was told.

So many doctrines have been changed over the years. Sad.

 

[MJFlores]

I totally agree. I think that the orginal teachings of Jesus and the apostles have gone astray throughout the years. They've been changed by certain faiths and churches and so many different versions of the bible.

How many times in scripture does it tell us that Jesus or the "coming Messiah" was going to be like us? Look at Heb 2.

OT, look at 2 Sam 7 on what was told to David. Deut 18 to what Moses was told.

So many doctrines have been changed over the years. Sad.

Maybe you should make a thread for that thought.
I couldn't comprehend.
What I know is the different versions of the Bible
Though written in many forms corresponds to one thought

There are always passages which were not faithfully interpreted
because the interpreter have some bias
for example being a Catholic
or being a Protestant
or being a Trinitarian

But I do not totally agree that the Christian Bible lost
the teachings of Christ.

So I suggest your create a new thread for your new topic.
So we could discuss on this
Turning every stone and examining underneath

 

[Clear]

I totally agree. I think that the orginal teachings of Jesus and the apostles have gone astray throughout the years. They've been changed by certain faiths and churches and so many different versions of the bible.
How many times in scripture does it tell us that Jesus or the "coming Messiah" was going to be like us? Look at Heb 2.
OT, look at 2 Sam 7 on what was told to David. Deut 18 to what Moses was told.
So many doctrines have been changed over the years. Sad.

Hi Moorea944;

Can you explain what it is you are suggesting in more specific terms?

Clear
εινεσινεω

 

[moorea944]

Hi Moorea944;

Can you explain what it is you are suggesting in more specific terms?

Clear
εινεσινεω

Sure. What I was suggesting is that, how much of doctrines have been changed or altered throughout the years since Christ. I was giving two examples about the trinity on how people didnt believe in a Triune God. And what they were told.

That's all.

 

[Clear]

Hi @moorea944 :

thank you for the repeated information. Can you be a bit more specific?

For example, you said : "I think that the orginal teachings of Jesus and the apostles have gone astray throughout the years. They've been changed by certain faiths and churches and so many different versions of the bible. How many times in scripture does it tell us that Jesus or the "coming Messiah" was going to be like us? Look at Heb 2...." (post #162)

Can you explain specifically what you mean in relation to Hebrews 2? While I agree with you that later christian movements are frequently very different in doctrine than early Christianity was, I am not sure HOW you think they are different and what the import of these differences are. For example, can you explain your reference to Hebrews 2 ?

thanks in advance for more specific information.

Clear
τωτζειειω

 

[moorea944]

Hi @moorea944 :

thank you for the repeated information. Can you be a bit more specific?

For example, you said : "I think that the orginal teachings of Jesus and the apostles have gone astray throughout the years. They've been changed by certain faiths and churches and so many different versions of the bible. How many times in scripture does it tell us that Jesus or the "coming Messiah" was going to be like us? Look at Heb 2...." (post #162)

Can you explain specifically what you mean in relation to Hebrews 2? While I agree with you that later christian movements are frequently very different in doctrine than early Christianity was, I am not sure HOW you think they are different and what the import of these differences are. For example, can you explain your reference to Hebrews 2 ?

thanks in advance for more specific information.

Clear
τωτζειειω

Ok, no problem. I mentioned Heb 2 because of what was "told" to our forefathers, like David and Moses.

Moses was told in Deut 18 , "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him"

So Moses was told that a coming Prophet was going to be "raised up" from among their people. He was going to be "like" Moses in a way. God was going to put words in his mouth and that person was going to speak what God commands him to speak. That is the opposite of the trinity.

David was told in 2 Sam 7, "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever."

David was told that someone from you David!!! All through scripture we are told that the throne of David will be re-established again in the future, and.......... David will see it happen!! So David also believed in the resurrection too.

In our times we read the NT. Heb 2 says that Jesus was like us. It doesnt say the he is a God, it says that he was just like us in nature. Not 100% man, 100% God that some people believe.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he.... also... himself..... likewise.... took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

David and Moses knew of a coming messiah that was going to be like them. Never, is anyone told and anytime that God was coming down from Heaven or pre-existed. How come David and Moses wasnt told that? That would have been a perfect time to do it. Just like in Luke with Mary...... remember what she was told?
That's why I was comparing Heb 2 with David and Moses.

Hope this helps.

 

[Clear]

Ok, no problem. I mentioned Heb 2 because of what was "told" to our forefathers, like David and Moses.

Moses was told in Deut 18 , "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him"

So Moses was told that a coming Prophet was going to be "raised up" from among their people. He was going to be "like" Moses in a way. God was going to put words in his mouth and that person was going to speak what God commands him to speak. That is the opposite of the trinity.

David was told in 2 Sam 7, "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever."

David was told that someone from you David!!! All through scripture we are told that the throne of David will be re-established again in the future, and.......... David will see it happen!! So David also believed in the resurrection too.

In our times we read the NT. Heb 2 says that Jesus was like us. It doesnt say the he is a God, it says that he was just like us in nature. Not 100% man, 100% God that some people believe.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he.... also... himself..... likewise.... took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

David and Moses knew of a coming messiah that was going to be like them. Never, is anyone told and anytime that God was coming down from Heaven or pre-existed. How come David and Moses wasnt told that? That would have been a perfect time to do it. Just like in Luke with Mary...... remember what she was told?
That's why I was comparing Heb 2 with David and Moses.

Hope this helps.

Hi @moorea944

Thank you so much for the clarifying information. I agree with you that the earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation where the Messiah and God the Father are separate individuals seems, to me, to be more rational and logical than the later versions of the trinity where they are theorized to be the same being.

I LIKE YOUR INSIGHT THAT THE MESSIAH IS A SERVANT OF GOD THE FATHER, WHO GIVES THE MESSIAH DIRECTION AND SENDS THE MESSIAH TO ACCOMPLISH THE ATONEMENT

While there are many, many references in the New Testament literature that reference the fact that Jesus was a servant of a God who sent Jesus to do the will of this God who is, in some way, also his Father. The early Judeo-Christian literature also clarifies and solidifies this early concept.

For examples : Clement, the early Christian convert and colleague of the Apostle Peter said “Let all the nations know that you are the only God, “that Jesus Christ is your servant, and that “we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.” (1 Clement 59:4)

They early Christians spoke of the Father as “the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, ....among all of them have chsen those who love you through Jesus Christ, your beloved Servant, through whom you instructed us, sanctified us, honored us. (1 Clement 59:2-3)

The earliest Judao-christian understood and spoke of “...the all-seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ,. 1 Clement 64:1;

This chosing of Jesus by the LORD GOD was a clear and consistent theme in most of the earlier texts AND the doctrine becomes clearer the older the text as one approaches the time of Christ. For example, “Jewish” Enoch speaks of this time period when in vision of the pre-mortal heaven.

Quote: ...2 At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before-Time .... 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall.” (1st Enoch 48:1-7)

When one understands this earliest christian model of the trinity, then Jewish Enoch and Christian Bartholomew texts correlate completely :

Quote: “Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life everyone who came to me.” The Gospel of Bartholomew CH IV

A return to the earliest doctrine of the trinity allows not only a correlation of doctrine between Jewish Enoch and christian Bartholomew and many, many, many of the earliest Judao-Christian texts, but even the later texts make greater sense. For example, the discourse given by Archbishop Timothy was able to make sense of the earliest doctrines while the early model of the trinity was used.

Referring to the Time when the pre-creation Jesus becomes “named’ or “chosen” as the savior “slain from the foundation of the world”, Jesus explains regarding the creation of Adam that God, his Father

Quote: “... took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, “If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.” (Because of moral transgressions which God knows men will undergo)

Jesus explains to the apostles : “And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”

Such quotes are completely clear that Jesus is NOT the Father, but a subordinate TO the Father.

To the earliest Judao-Christians, it made sense that Jesus was the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the world. He WAS chosen from the foundation of the world. If you remove God and Jesus from this early context, then the earliest Judao-Christian texts cannot make sense. However, if one uses the early Christian model for the trinity, then one can use the earliest texts to understand what the earliest Christians believed and taught and how such things made sense to THEM. In their context, it made perfect sense to refer to The Father and the Son as separate individuals “... they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” (1st Enoch 48:10)

In the context of the earliest christians, it made perfect sense to the ancient Judo-Christians when the Son is given orders by his Father in the pre-creation heaven. :

Quote: ... And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...16 This command I heard heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 10:6-16)

The decensus doctrine and it’s vast accompanying literature can make sense in this early christian context where the Father and the Son are separate individuals whereas taken out of context, it cannot make the same sense. In the early christian text, apocalypse of Abraham, Jesus, speaking to Abraham says : “I am sent to you to strengthen you and to bless you in the name of God, creator of heavenly and earthly things, who has loved you....8 I am Iaoel...11 I am ordered to loosen Hades and to destroy those who wondered at the dead...” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 11,14-17)

Again, the pattern of Jesus being “sent” by the Father is clear. He is “ordered” to loosen Hades (a reference to christs descensus during the three days between death and resurrection). An entire genre of liturature (the early Christian descensus literature) makes more rational sense if Jesus is a separate individual from his Father. If they are the same, this ancient christian literature cannot correlate as rationally.

The apostles understood the concept of delegation of authority from God the Father, to the Son and then to them. “For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us." The gospel of Phillip;

I think your insight that Jesus cannot be the same individual as his father is closer to this early Christian model and is more rational and more logical and correlates better with the early Judeo-Christian literature than the later models where God the Father, Jesus the Messiah, and The Holy Spirit are all the same being.


In any case, I hope your Journey is wonderful Moorea944. Thanks so much for the extra information and I like your insights.


Clear
τωτζσιδρω

 

[Oeste]

According to the writer, Jesus has two minds and two wills.

So, what do you think?

Personally, I think it's hogwash.

Monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will. That is contrary to the Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) that correspond to his two natures (Dyothelitism).

Eventually Dyothelitism won out and for good reason.

If Christ had one will, and that will was God's, he could not be tempted as a man. Conversely, if Christ had the will of man then he could not have kept the will of God. He would have failed as surely as did Adam and Eve. Yet we know Christ atoned for our sins, which means he had a dual nature.

In Cur Deus Homo, Why God became a man, St. Anselm (1033-1109) states in regards to the Atonement that, “For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement.” (Chapter VII) Thus only God could take away man’s sins and only man needed them to be taken away.​

I think @dianaiad gave a good description at post #3 when she said she was a daughter and mother. She didn't cease to be a daughter when she became a mother, and she didn't cease to be a mother because she was a daughter. She was fully both at the same time.

 

[LightofTruth]

Monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will. That is contrary to the Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) that correspond to his two natures (Dyothelitism).

Eventually Dyothelitism won out and for good reason.

If Christ had one will, and that will was God's, he could not be tempted as a man. Conversely, if Christ had the will of man then he could not have kept the will of God. He would have failed as surely as did Adam and Eve. Yet we know Christ atoned for our sins, which means he had a dual nature.

In Cur Deus Homo, Why God became a man, St. Anselm (1033-1109) states in regards to the Atonement that, “For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement.” (Chapter VII) Thus only God could take away man’s sins and only man needed them to be taken away.​

I think @dianaiad gave a good description at post #3 when she said she was a daughter and mother. She didn't cease to be a daughter when she became a mother, and she didn't cease to be a mother because she was a daughter. She was fully both at the same time.

Christ did not need a dual nature to atone for sins. All he needed to do was to obey the commands of his God and lay down his life. Which he did. and in so doing his God accepted his sacrifice to make atonement for sins. Simple.

 

[moorea944]

Monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will. That is contrary to the Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) that correspond to his two natures (Dyothelitism).

Eventually Dyothelitism won out and for good reason.

If Christ had one will, and that will was God's, he could not be tempted as a man. Conversely, if Christ had the will of man then he could not have kept the will of God. He would have failed as surely as did Adam and Eve. Yet we know Christ atoned for our sins, which means he had a dual nature.

In Cur Deus Homo, Why God became a man, St. Anselm (1033-1109) states in regards to the Atonement that, “For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement.” (Chapter VII) Thus only God could take away man’s sins and only man needed them to be taken away.​

I think @dianaiad gave a good description at post #3 when she said she was a daughter and mother. She didn't cease to be a daughter when she became a mother, and she didn't cease to be a mother because she was a daughter. She was fully both at the same time.

Well, first of all, scripture tells us that Jesus WAS a man. And he had one will and that will was to do the father's will. Jesus always gave God the glory in everything he did. Always. God was working through his son. Christ had the nature and will of man, but did not fail because his father was working in him. They were one in will purpose. Christ did not have a dual nature. That doesnt even make sense. He was not a man God, he was a man. Not a mere man as in a sense of both human parents. He was from God in a sense that he was in God's plans and was created by God's Holy Spirit through a woman. But it had to be like that, the coming Messiah had to be like us. He had to overcome sin or sin in the flesh. That sin nature had to be conquered. Which he did.

 

[Oeste]

Christ did not need a dual nature to atone for sins.

So which nature did he need? Was it a Divine nature or a human one?

1. If Divine, how does that make Jesus a man?
2. If human, why did Christ need to be "sent" when we can all do what Christ did?

All he needed to do was to obey the commands of his God and lay down his life. Which he did. and in so doing his God accepted his sacrifice to make atonement for sins. Simple.

Well if that's all Christ needed to do with a human nature then that's all we need do to save ourselves, correct?
After all, we have the same human nature that Christ has.

So what was the point in his coming? Also, can you be clear on whose sins Christ atoned for. Was it mine, a select group, a select person, or all of humanity?

 

[Oeste]

Well, first of all, scripture tells us that Jesus WAS a man.

Agreed, but that’s not the full story. He was fully God and fully man and not one or the other.

And he had one will and that will was to do the father's will.

You claim he was just a man. How is man able to do God's will?

No man had been able to do God's will up until Christ and no man was able to do it after.

Let's look at scripture:

What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.…​

Since scripture cannot be broken, how do you account for this verse?

Jesus always gave God the glory in everything he did. Always. God was working through his son. Christ had the nature and will of man,

Okay, now I'm confused.

Did Christ have the nature and will of man, or did he have the nature and will of God? You've already told us he can't possibly have both.

but did not fail because his father was working in him.

So the Father is imposing His will to suppress Jesus' will as a man?

Is that one will or two working in Jesus?

Also, is this a special case, where the Father only works in Jesus and no one else? Or did the Father try to work with other wills but failed?

And if the Father tried and failed with others, why did it work with Jesus?

They were one in will purpose.

Okay, so you've told us

1. Christ had one will and
2. Christ had the nature and will of man
3. They were one in will purpose.​

Who are they? It can't be God because God's will is not the will of man, and there is only one will in purpose, remember?

Christ did not have a dual nature.
That doesnt even make sense

You've never worn two hats?

He was not a man God, he was a man.

Then how do you explain these verses?

Fully God:

Isa. 9:6; Matt. 11:27; 16:16; Mark 2:5-7; Luke 5:20-22; 9:20;
John 1:1; 1:14; 2:19, 21; 3:13, 31; 5:18; 6:38; 8:58; 9: 38; 10:17; 10:30; 13:3; 14:9; 14:23; 16:15; 16:28; 17:8; 17:21-23; 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Cor. 10:3-4; 15:47; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-17, 19; 2:9;
1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:2-3, 8-11; 2:7, 9, 14, 16; 13:8; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 3:14.

Fully Man

Matt. 1:1, 18-25; 4:2; 26:38; Luke 1:26-38; 9:58; 22:44; John 1:14; 11:33-35; 19:28, 34; Romans 9:5; 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Tim. 2:5; 3:16; Heb. 2:14-15, 17-18; 4:15; 10:5; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7.

Not a mere man as in a sense of both human parents. He was from God in a sense that he was in God's plans and was created by God's Holy Spirit through a woman

Okay…if he is not a mere man what kind of non-mere man is he, and how can a non-mere man die for a mere man’s sins? Wouldn’t he have to die for other non-mere men?

But it had to be like that, the coming Messiah had to be like us.

How is he “like us” when he is no ordinary man? You appear to be describing Jesus as an extraordinary man who was programmed to obey the will of God much like an automaton, and then you say "he’s just like us".

How is he "just like us" when no one else, including Adam or Eve, received this intense programming? Did Jesus have have free will, or did God take over Jesus' free will and impose His own?

He had to overcome sin or sin in the flesh. That sin nature had to be conquered. Which he did.

This makes no sense to me. If Jesus had "the will of God" there is no "sin nature" to overcome. If Jesus has a sin nature to overcome, then he does not have the will of God.

The only way I can think he could have a sin nature and then the will of God is if he was born in sin and acquired the will of God later.

Is this what you're saying? That Jesus had a dual nature separated by time?

 

[LightofTruth]

So which nature did he need? Was it a Divine nature or a human one?

1. If Divine, how does that make Jesus a man?
2. If human, why did Christ need to be "sent" when we can all do what Christ did?



Well if that's all Christ needed to do with a human nature then that's all we need do to save ourselves, correct?
After all, we have the same human nature that Christ has.

So what was the point in his coming? Also, can you be clear on whose sins Christ atoned for. Was it mine, a select group, a select person, or all of humanity?

Can you explain what you understand "nature" to mean?

 

[PearlSeeker]

According to the writer, Jesus has two minds and two wills.

So, what do you think?

Personally, I think it's hogwash.

Actually human in general has more than one nature and mind...

 

[Oeste]

So which nature* did he need? Was it a Divine nature or a human one?

1. If Divine, how does that make Jesus a man?
2. If human, why did Christ need to be "sent" when we can all do what Christ did?

Can you explain what you understand "nature" to mean?

* “Nature”in this context means the basic, innate, and/or inherent characteristic(s) of someone.

All he needed to do was to obey the commands of his God and lay down his life. Which he did. and in so doing his God accepted his sacrifice to make atonement for sins. Simple.

Well if that's all Christ needed to do with a human nature then that's all we need do to save ourselves, correct?
After all, we have the same human nature that Christ has.

So what was the point in his coming? Also, can you be clear on whose sins Christ atoned for. Was it mine, a select group, a select person, or all of humanity?

 

[LightofTruth]

​

* “Nature”in this context means the basic, innate, and/or inherent characteristic(s) of someone.

​

Well if that's all Christ needed to do with a human nature then that's all we need do to save ourselves, correct?
After all, we have the same human nature that Christ has.

So what was the point in his coming? Also, can you be clear on whose sins Christ atoned for. Was it mine, a select group, a select person, or all of humanity?

What were/are the basic,innate, and/or inherent characteristic(s) of Jesus?

 

[moorea944]

Maybe you should make a thread for that thought.
I couldn't comprehend.
What I know is the different versions of the Bible
Though written in many forms corresponds to one thought

There are always passages which were not faithfully interpreted
because the interpreter have some bias
for example being a Catholic
or being a Protestant
or being a Trinitarian

But I do not totally agree that the Christian Bible lost
the teachings of Christ.

So I suggest your create a new thread for your new topic.
So we could discuss on this
Turning every stone and examining underneath

But I do not totally agree that the Christian Bible lost the teachings of Christ.
I wasnt talking about the bible. I was talking about the doctrines of man in their churches.
I think the bible is wonderful. Very little has been changed throughout the years by the translators.

 

[LightofTruth]

​

* “Nature”in this context means the basic, innate, and/or inherent characteristic(s) of someone.

​

Well if that's all Christ needed to do with a human nature then that's all we need do to save ourselves, correct?
After all, we have the same human nature that Christ has.

So what was the point in his coming? Also, can you be clear on whose sins Christ atoned for. Was it mine, a select group, a select person, or all of humanity?

According to Scripture, all descendants of Adam are born with a sinful nature or sinful flesh. Since Jesus is a son of Adam he too must have had sinful flesh. If he did not then he would not have been of the same flesh and blood as all man. And if his flesh and blood were different than the rest he would be a nondescript creature.
What makes Christ unique is that while he had sinful flesh he personally committed no sin. So God accepted his sacrifice to atone for sin.

 

[moorea944]

Agreed, but that’s not the full story. He was fully God and fully man and not one or the other.



You claim he was just a man. How is man able to do God's will?

No man had been able to do God's will up until Christ and no man was able to do it after.

Let's look at scripture:

What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.…​

Since scripture cannot be broken, how do you account for this verse?



Okay, now I'm confused.

Did Christ have the nature and will of man, or did he have the nature and will of God? You've already told us he can't possibly have both.



So the Father is imposing His will to suppress Jesus' will as a man?

Is that one will or two working in Jesus?

Also, is this a special case, where the Father only works in Jesus and no one else? Or did the Father try to work with other wills but failed?

And if the Father tried and failed with others, why did it work with Jesus?



Okay, so you've told us

1. Christ had one will and
2. Christ had the nature and will of man
3. They were one in will purpose.​

Who are they? It can't be God because God's will is not the will of man, and there is only one will in purpose, remember?



You've never worn two hats?



Then how do you explain these verses?

Fully God:

Isa. 9:6; Matt. 11:27; 16:16; Mark 2:5-7; Luke 5:20-22; 9:20;
John 1:1; 1:14; 2:19, 21; 3:13, 31; 5:18; 6:38; 8:58; 9: 38; 10:17; 10:30; 13:3; 14:9; 14:23; 16:15; 16:28; 17:8; 17:21-23; 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Cor. 10:3-4; 15:47; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-17, 19; 2:9;
1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:2-3, 8-11; 2:7, 9, 14, 16; 13:8; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 3:14.

Fully Man

Matt. 1:1, 18-25; 4:2; 26:38; Luke 1:26-38; 9:58; 22:44; John 1:14; 11:33-35; 19:28, 34; Romans 9:5; 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Tim. 2:5; 3:16; Heb. 2:14-15, 17-18; 4:15; 10:5; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7.



Okay…if he is not a mere man what kind of non-mere man is he, and how can a non-mere man die for a mere man’s sins? Wouldn’t he have to die for other non-mere men?



How is he “like us” when he is no ordinary man? You appear to be describing Jesus as an extraordinary man who was programmed to obey the will of God much like an automaton, and then you say "he’s just like us".

How is he "just like us" when no one else, including Adam or Eve, received this intense programming? Did Jesus have have free will, or did God take over Jesus' free will and impose His own?



This makes no sense to me. If Jesus had "the will of God" there is no "sin nature" to overcome. If Jesus has a sin nature to overcome, then he does not have the will of God.

The only way I can think he could have a sin nature and then the will of God is if he was born in sin and acquired the will of God later.

Is this what you're saying? That Jesus had a dual nature separated by time?

Agreed, but that’s not the full story. He was fully God and fully man and not one or the other.
Actually, that is the full story. We know that he messiah had to be a man to conquer sin. If he was a God, or God himself, there would be no temptation.

You claim he was just a man. How is man able to do God's will?
Jesus could. You have to remember that God was Jesus's father and that he was working "through" his son at all times. Jesus had access to God's help and angels.

No man had been able to do God's will up until Christ and no man was able to do it after.
I think you just answered your own question.

"What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.…"
Since scripture cannot be broken, how do you account for this verse?
Paul's not talking about Christ. He's talking to the brother's & sisters that he's writing to.

Okay, now I'm confused.
Did Christ have the nature and will of man, or did he have the nature and will of God? You've already told us he can't possibly have both.
There were two wills, the will of Jesus and the will of God. Jesus's will was to do the will of his father. We read that in the Gospels. Jesus wanted to do everything the father wanted. We also read that Jesus couldnt do nothing without the father's help.

Look at Deut 18 on what Moses was told on a "coming Messiah".

So the Father is imposing His will to suppress Jesus' will as a man?
No one was supressing Jesus. Why would you say that?

Is that one will or two working in Jesus?
All ready answered that.

Also, is this a special case, where the Father only works in Jesus and no one else? Or did the Father try to work with other wills but failed?
God only didnt work with Jesus. But we have to remember that Jesus was God's son. No one in history was that. But God does work through other people. We read that all through scripture. Samsom, Moses, David, Apostles, etc........

And if the Father tried and failed with others, why did it work with Jesus?
OUr Creator doesnt fail in anything. Maybe it's something that we dont understand and we're blaming God.......

Okay, so you've told us
1. Christ had one will and
2. Christ had the nature and will of man
3. They were one in will purpose.
Who are they? It can't be God because God's will is not the will of man, and there is only one will in purpose, remember?
Not sure what your really saying here....... Christ's will was to do the father's will. We actually read that. Jesus came in the father's name, to do what the father wanted his son to accomplish.

Then how do you explain these verses?
Again, your making Jesus God. Your talking verses and your making them fit your beliefs. Jesus is not God and man at the same time. We only see that in the movies, like Clash of the Titans, or something like that.

Okay…if he is not a mere man what kind of non-mere man is he, and how can a non-mere man die for a mere man’s sins? Wouldn’t he have to die for other non-mere men?
When I say that his not just a mere man, I'm stating that because he has God as his father. Scripture tells us that Jesus was a man, like us, same nature. But.... God as his father. The questions that your asking is like your trying to make Jesus into something different than what scripture tells us.

How is he “like us” when he is no ordinary man? You appear to be describing Jesus as an extraordinary man who was programmed to obey the will of God much like an automaton, and then you say "he’s just like us".
Wow! Where is this coming from?.... Jesus was like is in nature. Born of a woman, prone to sin. There was a reason for that too. The messiah had to be like us. To overcome sin. Which he did with his father's "help". Could Jesus have sinned if he wanted to? Yes, because he was born with our nature. But he chose not to.

Plus, Jesus wasnt "programmed" to do anything. Why would you even say that? When you read the bible, do you see a programmed Jesus? I dont. He was like us. He suffered, cried, he felt pain, etc, etc.....